MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 2, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 11:00 a.m., on Friday, April 2, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Thomas J. Hickey

Senator Leonard V. Nevin

Senator Matthew Q. Callister

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst

Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Carole J. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks

Mark Sirtec, City of Sparks Charter Committee

Brian Doran, Court Administrator, Sparks Municipal Court

Ex-Assemblyman Gaylyn J. Spriggs, District 36

Mike Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

 

 

 

 

Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 310.

 

SENATE BILL 310:  Requires that regulation be received more than 10 working days before meeting of legislative commission for commission to be required to review it at that meeting.

 

 

 

 

Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, spoke to the committee on S.B. 310.  He stated:

 

      The legislative commission recommended this legislation and since Senator O'Connell is the only regular member of the commission on the committee I will go over very briefly what the legislative commission does with regulations.  During the interim, starting June 15th, our primary function shifts from drafting bills to reviewing regulations.  When an agency proposes a regulation and submits it to our office we revise the language and make sure it is clear, concise and suitable for incorporation into the Nevada Administrative Code.  It is then sent back to the agency and the agency, at that point, has their public hearing and adopts the regulation or decides not to.  They submit the adopted regulation to our office for filing with the secretary of state.  It is during this period that the legislative commission has the opportunity to review the regulation.  If no commission meeting is scheduled for the next 35 days unless subcommittee is convened, the regulation is filed with the secretary of state without objection.  If the commission does meet, all the regulations that we received within the 35-day period preceding the commission meeting are given to the commission for its review.  The commission cannot veto the regulation, they cannot prohibit the agency from filing it, but they can express their objection.  If they express their objection, the agency has the opportunity to file over the commission's objection or to revise the regulation to address the commission's concern.  The provision that this bill addresses is how long before that commission meeting we have to receive a regulation for the commission to be required to review it.  Currently you can see in the statute that it requires we receive it more than 3 working days before the meeting.  What we have found as agencies have become more and more proficient at adopting regulations, is an inordinate number of regulations received approximately 4 or 5 working days before the commission meeting.  This required us by statute to present it to the commission, but gave us very little time to review the regulations.  Last session what the commission did was had Mrs. Spriggs (Ex-Assemblyman Gaylyn Spriggs, District 36) review these regulations before the meeting.  We would send her all of the regulations we had received a week or so before and then usually fed ex [federal expressed] to her all of the regulations that came in 4 or 5 days before the commission meeting for a last minute review.  It also put a strain on our review of these regulations because we need to look at the regulation and make sure the agency, had it made some changes that we weren't aware of, slipped in something or made a mistake in how they changed something.  This bill would change from 3 working days to 10 working days the amount of time before a commission meeting that the regulation must be received for the commission to be required to take action on the regulation at that meeting.  I suspect we will get a lot of regulations submitted 11 or 12 working days before the commission meeting.  That is fine.  That is a way an agency can get a regulation adopted and filed with the secretary of state fairly quickly, but also allows us an adequate amount of time to review it and also allows the commission a meaningful period of time in which to review it.  With that I will turn it over to Mrs. Spriggs (Ex-Assemblyman) to explain the commission's feelings on this.

 

Ex-Assemblyman Gaylyn Spriggs, District 36, spoke on S.B. 310.  She stated:

 

      I am representing myself today as a former member of the legislative commission.  My first time on the commission we were asked to vote on these regulations and passing them out and I asked, "what are they?"  And we did not have them before us so for my meddling they asked me to review all of them each time before we had a meeting and report to them [the commission] anything that was of interest in the regulations.  I found that almost impossible to do because I would receive them, at no fault of Lorne's [Malkiewich], maybe the night before the commission hearing and there might be a stack like this that I might have to read.  I thought it would be more reasonable for the commission to have time to look at these regulations if they were actually going to vote on their approval before we receive them.  Senator O'Connell agreed with me and helped me get the commission to vote to change this or have this law put in this time.

 

Chairman O'Connell asked Ex-Assemblyman Spriggs to explain to the committee the problems that arose from the environmental commission and some of the regulations they put through with fees that were a big concern of the legislative commission.

 

 

 

 

Ex-Assemblyman Springs stated:

 

      The environmental commission put through regulations right after the session, I think it was during our July meeting and those regulations had all brand new fees and some of them were up to 3,000 percent increases and it was page after page after page and all of these regulations were changed, all the fees were raised right after a legislative session.  I questioned that and I wanted to know why.  We were not allowed to look at them or have time to do anything with them because they were submitted to the commission so late.

 

Chairman O'Connell stated such examples as this which causes real concern to legislators regarding what the regulations contain.  She explained the commission does not have the ability, presently, to change those regulations, but they can register their opposition to them if they have the opportunity to look at them first.  She stated that is why S.B. 310 is before the committee today.

 

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke on S.B. 310.  She stated she supports this regulation as written.  She explained it is difficult when she attends legislative commission meetings because of items on the agenda, particularly regulations.  She asked the committee to favorably pass this bill.

 

Chairman O'Connell asked for a motion on S.B. 310.

 

      SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 310.

 

      SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 310 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 308.

 

SENATE BILL 308:  Makes various changes to charter of City of Sparks relating to judicial department.

 

 

Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, spoke on S.B. 308.  She gave the members of the committee a copy of her written testimony (Exhibit C). 

 

 

 

Mark Sertic, City of Sparks Charter Committee, spoke on S.B. 308.  He told the committee the charter committee met over several months and had several meetings and took a lot of public comment on these issues.  He said the Sparks City Council has approved these proposed changes.  He explained the reason for the request to extend the terms to 6 years is to allow the municipal judges to devote more of their time to perform their judicial role and less time having to campaign and seek campaign funds.  This would make municipal judges consistent with justices of the peace.

 

Mr. Sertic stated the reason the charter committee requested a change requiring all judges to be attorneys is because Sparks is no longer the sleepy community it used to be.  He explained there are more and more complex cases going before the municipal judges and municipal courts are courts of record, which means appeals and criminal cases from municipal court go up to district court solely on the record.  He pointed out if there is a mistake of law by the municipal judge at the municipal level, it cannot be fixed on appeal and it goes up on the record and the defendant is either going to be acquitted because of a technical mistake or there is going to be a new trial.  Mr. Sertic stated both of those options are undesirable, especially if there is a new trial, because it increases the cost to the citizens of Sparks.  He explained on cases of indigent defendants, the City of Sparks is providing public defender services both for the trial and for these appeals and it is felt there are more and more mistakes being made. 

 

Senator Lowden asked if there were any municipal judges in Sparks now who do not have law degrees and would they be affected if this bill passes.

 

Mr. Sertic stated there is one, but that one would be grandfathered in with this bill.  He said one of the strongest arguments in favor of this bill came from the judge who does not hold a law degree.  He explained it takes a 1 to 2 years to learn the job of being a judge which imposes a cost on the City of Sparks during that learning period.

 

Senator Nevin asked if this judge was supporting this bill with the stipulation he be grandfathered into the law.  Mr. Sertic said no, this was not a stipulation.  He explained this judge now has 4 years of experience on the job. 

 

Ms. Foster stated in Las Vegas when they established the requirement that their municipal court judges be attorneys, they did grandfather their lay judges in.

 

Brian Doran, Court Administrator, Sparks Municipal Court, spoke to the committee on S.B. 308.  He provided the committee with a letter (Exhibit D). 

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 308 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 318.

 

SENATE BILL 318:  Reconciles requirements for financial reporting by school districts.

 

Mike Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, spoke on S.B. 318.  He stated this bill was requested by the school district with a view toward clarifying and improving public financial reporting for school districts in particular.  He explained there are several important operative passages, the first and probably most important starts on line 3 where the dates by which certain reports are due would be changed.  They propose the audit date and reporting date be synchronized so more accurate information can be published.  He stated there are also references to some obsolete and ineffectual reporting to the county auditor.  He told the committee he presents this bill as a clarifying measure.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 318.  There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                              RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                      

                              Tanya Morrison,

                              Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                           

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Government Affairs

April 2, 1993

Page 1